The full content of Annals is available to subscribers

Copyright in the material you requested is held by American College Of Physicians
(unless otherwise noted). This email ability is provided as a courtesy, and by using
it you agree that that you are requesting the material solely for personal, non-commercial
use, and that it is subject to ACP's Conditions of Use.
The information provided in order to email this topic will not be used to send unsolicited
email, nor will it be furnished to third parties. Please refer to
American College Of Physicians'sPrivacy
Policy for further information.

Claims of Equivalence in Medical Research: Are They Supported by the Evidence?

From Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut; and West Haven Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Veterans Affairs Connecticut Healthcare System, West Haven, Connecticut.

Grant Support: Dr. Greene was a Robert Wood Johnson Clinical Scholar at Yale University School of Medicine at the time this work was done. Dr. Concato is supported by a Career Development Award from the Veterans Affairs Health Services Research and Development Service.

Background:Most clinical studies are done to show comparative superiority, but many reports now claim equivalence between the investigated entities. These assertions may not always be supported by the methods used and the results obtained.

Purpose:To assess the justification and support for claims of clinical or therapeutic equivalence in medical journals.

Data Sources:A search of MEDLINE for articles published from 1992 through 1996.

Study Selection:From 1209 citations that contained the word equivalence in the title or abstract or contained the Medical Subject Heading therapeutic equivalency, we excluded 1121 studies reporting nonoriginal research, purely laboratory or other nonhuman research, and studies in which equivalence was not the main claim. The remaining 88 eligible papers were evaluated for five methodologic attributes.

Data Synthesis:Only 45 (51%) of the 88 reports were specifically aimed at studying equivalence; the others either tried to show superiority or did not state a research aim. The quantitative distinctions regarded as â€œequivalentâ€ ranged from 0% to 21% for direct increments and from 0% to 76% for proportionate differences. An equivalence boundary was set and confirmed with an appropriate statistical test in only 23% of reports. In 67% of reports, equivalence was declared after a failed test for comparative superiority, and in 10%, the claim of equivalence was not statistically evaluated. The sample size needed to confirm results had been calculated in advance for only 33% of reports. Sample size was 20 patients per group or fewer in 25% of reports.

Conclusions:Many studies of clinical equivalence do not set boundaries for equivalence. Claims of â€œdifferenceâ€ or â€œsimilarityâ€ are often made not by thoughtful examination of the data but by tests of statistical significance that are often misapplied or accompanied by inadequate sample sizes. These methodologic flaws can lead to false claims, inconsistencies, and harm to patients.

Comments

Please read the other comments before posting. Contributors must reveal any conflict
of interest.
Comments are moderated and will appear on the site at the discretion of The American
College of Physicians editorial staff. Please be sure your email address is
updated in your account, otherwise the American College of Physicians will not be
able to contact you about your comment.

* = Required Field

Comment Author(s)* (if multiple authors,
separate names by comma)

Example: John Doe

Affiliation & Institution*

Disclosure of Any Conflicts of Interest*
(applies to the past 5 years and foreseeable future) Indicate any potential conflicts
of interest of each author below, including specific financial interests and relationships
and affiliations relevant to the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript
(eg, employment/affiliation, grants or funding, consultancies, honoraria, speakers
bureau, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, royalties, donation of medical
equipment, or patents filed, received, or pending). If all authors have none, check
"No potential conflicts or relevant financial interests" in the box below. Please
also indicate any funding received in support of this work. The information will
be posted with your response.

Summary for Patients

Clinical Slide Sets

Terms of Use

The In the Clinic® slide sets are owned and copyrighted by the American College
of Physicians (ACP). All text, graphics, trademarks, and other intellectual property
incorporated into the slide sets remain the sole and exclusive property of the ACP.
The slide sets may be used only by the person who downloads or purchases them and
only for the purpose of presenting them during not-for-profit educational activities.
Users may incorporate the entire slide set or selected individual slides into their
own teaching presentations but may not alter the content of the slides in any way
or remove the ACP copyright notice. Users may make print copies for use as hand-outs
for the audience the user is personally addressing but may not otherwise reproduce
or distribute the slides by any means or media, including but not limited to sending
them as e-mail attachments, posting them on Internet or Intranet sites, publishing
them in meeting proceedings, or making them available for sale or distribution in
any unauthorized form, without the express written permission of the ACP. Unauthorized
use of the In the Clinic slide sets will constitute copyright infringement.